December 19, 2024 • 40 mins
It's been a packed year of politics, with each party facing their own highlights and challenges.
For the final On the Tiles of 2024, Thomas is joined by regular panellists Jason Walls and Jenee Tibshraeny for a recap of the events of the year, looking at the high and lowlights from across the Political Spectrum, thoughts for 2025, and who were the best performing politicians.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Hello and welcome to on the titles the New Zealand
Heroes Politics Podcast. This is our last on the titles
of the year. You've had the last local edition with Georgina,
that's the last non local edition. Joining me today is
our Wellington business editorative Tiny Twit Merry Christmas.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hello Thomas, Merry Christmas to you.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Too, and News will see the Bees Politically Jason Walls
Mary Christmas, Mery Christmas got married?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
I did get married. Yeah, that be your heart out
of the I would be in a lot of trouble
if I said it wasn't.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
It wasn't a budget.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
The budget was I can't even remember the but it
was some time ago.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Did your life get back on track?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
My life is was very much on track. So just
enter if you're listening, just enter with a tea to
stop any of those rumors. If you're listening to this,
thank you very much for making my year as mary
and bright as it is.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Oh my god, I'm so creended out for words. If
you're listening, just then to I'm so sorry, right, Highlights
and No Lights. In a pre podcast conversation, we have
decided that I will go first my Highlights and No
Lights policy wise, did start with something that my heart
that would be the tax package. I think it worked.
There was a lot of a lot of nay saying
prior to the election that it would cause inflation. There
(01:08):
was a lot of there were very many attacks on
the text package for not being fully funded the treasury.
Of course, I suppose you tweak the text package to
make sure that it was fully funded. But by the
time it got to the budget, Treasury was convinced that
it was fully funded through revenue and cutting. And then
when the text package triggered in July, there was no
(01:28):
demonstrable effect on inflation. The first interest rate decision the
reserve being made after the text package triggered in July
was actually the first rate cut in a couple of years.
They fought an election on that text package. It was
a tax by for being excessively inflationary and unfunded. And
yet you'd have to say, from the perspective of now
they won.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
And Nicola, will this look like the cat that got
the cream? When that story came out that there was
Treasury forecasting no increases in inflation, and you remember, I
think it was was it your story or did you see.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
The Treasury advice when the Treasury advice got released that
they believed that the text package had I think is
slightly negative.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Personally, she was happy.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
And just to remind us what the text package was
because it might have been a while ago. There was
a bracket adjustments for income tax, so that means you
can get up to about one forty two dollars of
you know, pay less that much less tax per year. Also,
interest deductibility. Property investors can now deduct interest as a
(02:24):
expense and the bright line test has been taken back
to two years from ten years. And the way it's
being paid for is depreciation deductibility on commercial property. So yeah,
commander for on commercial property owners paying the bill, but
no one has so much sympathy.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
For them, I buy, you know, and we've I think
we've discussed on this podcast the commercial appreciation deductibility. That
is that is a good policy, you know, trusurely what
a lot of people think. It's a very robust, growth
friendly policy.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
So they cannot commercial and industrial building owners cannot deduct
depreciation as an expense about.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Half a billion dollars with text revenew on.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Yeah, yeah, so it's actually that's quite significant anyway. But yeah,
politically what a win.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I mean, yeah, and good politics as well, because you know,
we just were talking about how nor one's out here
with the tiny little violins for the commercial landlords after
many years of good gains. So there wasn't anybody marching
in the streets for that. But on the back of
the fact that Winston pulled the pen on the plans
to tax foreign buyers, and I thought at that stage,
when they didn't get that of the line, there's going
to have to be some massive concessions. But I think
(03:30):
that was quite a good a good win for the
for the Nats actually getting that one across the line.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
The other one with commercial depreciation is that at the
time was introduced, it was meant to be permanent. It
was seen to be permanent, and then both Labor and
National campaign on getting rid of it, so they, you know,
Labor in particular broke promise to make it permanent, and
well obviously the changes around interested actibility for residential landloards.
And you know, we wonder why we don't get much
foreign investment in New Zealand, it's because every three years
(03:57):
these parties come together backflip on stuff that I'm quite
important text policies that they said would be permanent, So
why would you invest money It doesn't.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
It's with a lot of confidence if you're sitting overseas.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Yeah, in terms of the stop being inflationary, I mean
we do have to remember that infrastrates did, the ocr
did get very high, monetary policy was very tight, so
you know that's uh, that's what it was. That's what
it was up against. But i mean politically great, great win. Really,
property market hasn't taken off, but I think that's again
due to the high interest rates.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Don't talk to me and Thomas about that. Oh man.
So my low light personal I've done my wedding highlight,
but my lowlight was getting my house this year and
seeing how much money it's the lost and being probably
one of the only people in New Zealand's history to
lose money on property in New Zealand. How good for me?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, good on you for saying it, Jason, because I
think a lot of people do and no one says it.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Oh yeah, no, it's very embarrassing.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
So investors, right, we only hear about the bitcoin zillionaire to.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Hear about the failures. But I'm well and truly ready to.
You can do one of those herald stories where it's
just like I bought my house and then you find
our six paragraphs that it was like because I had
heaps of help from my parents. I could do one
where it's like, yeah, here's my housing fail.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Next year, Jason, that's not impact. Yeah, that's right to
your point, Engineer. I mean, we're not saying that the
tax package brought down inflation, and it wasn't designed to
bring down inflation. It just wasn't designed to stoke inflation.
And I think I think they definitely won on well
the truth of the advice that it had a net
negative impact on inflation, but it was so marginal that
you couldn't actually tell. The package was designed to make
sure that people had a bit of additional income, but
(05:28):
that that that additional income wouldn't be wouldn't wouldn't lead
to inflation, so at least make make inflation no worse.
And I think it did deliver on that, and I
think why the Bank brought forward its cuts as well,
So it's sort of like it, well, I mean again,
and well, this wasn't You can't say that the text
package had any positive impact on the inflationary picture. But
that's the fact that that the government was able to
(05:49):
increase people's after tax incomes without causing inflation and an
environment of high inflation. I think sort of something of
an achievement.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
It's going to be interesting to see how things go
with this chat about needing to broaden the tax base.
I wrote a preview for the Haiifu, that's the Treasuries
half year fiscals, And you know, it's interesting to see
economists who are traditionally perceived to be more conservative and
perhaps more on the right, saying that the tax base
(06:16):
needs to broaden. So that means instead of charging us
more tax, we need to get a different type of
tax or I guess a larger pool of people, the
breadth of it broadening. And you know that's coming from
people who aren't just that your typical pro capital gains
tax left wing types.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
I wonder if the government's thought about a tax on
like say, if your house increases in value and you
sell the house, you pay some tax on the value
of the capital, maybe a capital gains tax or something
like that.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
You think that would a capital gain on the So
we moved to lowlights. Yes, my lowlight would be the furies.
I think that you know, the government has deley delaied
for a year on this and they seemingly not come
to any you know solution this rail enablement and broady.
The public seemed to have been poorly served, I think
by the amount of information they've been getting. You know.
(07:05):
You see cubid Rail saying rail enablement's utterly essential this
year in briefings that were released as part of the
Productive Release instead hinting at that in their first slick
Committee appearance of the year with the former board chair
David McLean and the Estimates Scrutiny Week. Now at the
annual review Scrutiny Week got a different key Rail board
chair and a not very different executive team saying that
rail enableman isn't so essential. See Stephen Joyce in the
(07:28):
Hero at the Weekend saying the chief executive of Kiby
Rail from twenty sixteen said that rail enablement was about
waste of time and money. Well, who is the chief
executive of key round twenty sixteen, Peter already, who's the
chief executive key Rail? Now? You know, no one knows
what there are billions of dollars at stake. No one
seems to agree on whether this billion dollar decision is
actually essential or really non essential. After twelve months, the
(07:49):
public's no better off.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
I think it's a shame and it's interesting how it's
sort of has come together behind the scenes as well,
because of very much from the people that I'm talking to,
and I think you probably have a similar perspective you too,
is that there was not a deal hammered out, but
an attractive looking option back in the middle of the year,
until Winston Peters took a look and said, well, hang
on a second, I think I can do better, and
Cabinet gave them until March next year to do so.
(08:12):
And it was you know, Nicola Willis and the nons
that have very much had to sort of eat it
and just say you have what have you been doing?
In fact, the first question that I had in the
press conference is what have you been doing for a year?
And I had a number of people text me. I
was like, yeah, absolutely, well what are they actually doing?
But it sounds like Winston is actually the one he
was trying to get a better deal.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Nicola Willis said that should you know that that government
had gone out and been speaking they made soundings with
ship builders and made soundings with people in the sector
about what was possible and what they think is possible
what the Ministry of Advisory Group has sort of basically
recommended as two hundred meter row packs ships. So Winston
Peters seems to think that there's one ship some shipyard
out there that that the government hasn't spoken to that
(08:52):
can somehow deliver these much more expensive rail enable blah
blah blah blah blah for within the same funding envelope
with private finance. Like you just you have to say, well,
why what is giving him the belief that he thinks
something better can be found or as the government just
delaying this bust up till March.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Yeah, yeah, And I mean this is fundamental, key infrastructure
for the country, So you really it's not just some
sort of politicing thing at the side around something that
has no material impact on anyone's life. So you really
do need to hope that that Winston Peters knows what
he's what he's doing. And it's also not the sort
of thing you can just conjure up quickly. You know,
there's no band aid solution. You don't just find fairies
(09:29):
important infrastructure quickly, So yeah, big.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Fail massive and yeah I think I mean again to
the sort of commercial appreciation text changes, then the interest
deductibility TEX changes to this, You're like all of these
massive critical text settings that should be long and enduring infrastructure,
which we you know, fund decide to build, then slightly
defund and cancel. You know, it's ridiculous, and you earn again,
(09:52):
you know that these politicians are going to go out
and campaign on on driving economic growth and attracting investment here,
and yet they're the way tweaking these sittings in such
a kind of sea story kind of way, and you can't,
you really can't wonder why so many people are put
off investing in this country.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yeah, no matter what Shane John's does and where he
goes and says whatever he says, you, if you look
at the cold hard facts of it, the flip flops
make it a lot harder.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Will they have autopilot? That's what everyone wants to know.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Why can no one figure out how to turn off
the auto pilot? That was wasn't it that the auto pilot?
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yes? Well, I mean the ship are we talking about it? Exactly?
Speaker 3 (10:30):
Amazingly? We could we can choice here.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
I remember one time, you know, I was saying during
an earthquake, the would have to use the Navy to
get fury suppliers, the stuff that the theories would have
taken into Wellington. And now you think, criking not the Navy,
don't send.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Them, bring a jet star if we need something.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
I know. Well, that's quite ampressive that the New Zealand
that you know Navy managed to procure itself a submarine
before the Australians in a much more.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Key we number and the mails on, that's for sure.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Least ours has autopilots. You know you have you have
your highlights and no lights.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Yes, well actually this sort of ties in quite well
to my highlights and low lights. My highlight is kind
of boring. It is that largely, other than the fairies,
the coalition has stuck to it's coalition agreement, so that
is yeah, so that has provided some predictability, which is good.
I think people haven't always understood exactly the implications of
(11:24):
every one of those bullet points in those agreements. Though
quite long, particularly in the employment relation space. Brooklyn Valden's
actually been pretty active winding back some sort of protections
for workers and to support businesses, make it easier for
business people to take take a risk on people. But
generally I think that's been a success. You know, they
took some time nutted out those agreements, and where it's
(11:45):
failed is with the fairies. You know, that was not
nutted out beforehand, and that's imploded my low light also
sort of a couple of lowlights. And they also come
back to policy flip flops actually kind of order. Oh yes, right,
so right, we can understand that Kyng Order was not
run very well previously. They tried to establish a whole
agency and do lots of home building at the time
(12:08):
the market was super hot, the private sector was hot.
But now to just cut off the pipeline of state
house building and push it all towards community housing providers
or largely take away that pipeline of work at a
time when builders are going to Australia and just take
away that certainty, to me, doesn't make sense. Even though
(12:30):
the model previously had its shortcomings. It feels a bit
like you're throwing out throwing the baby out with the
bath water, and you're not being countersicklick.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
It's interesting, like the I think the christ Bishop probably
made a mistake in getting Bill English to do that
ki Aura report because it just have had a whiff
of a failure complete that the government had sort of
got one of its friends and to justify doing you know,
something fairly radical to Kyle Aura. When you look at
like Louise Upston bringing and Sir Martin Weavers sort of
sort of some investigation of fai kaha, it just has
(13:02):
a much better sense of impartiality. Yeah, when you have
a public servant doing it. So you should have had
the Bill English review going again up against the trial.
Poverty Action Group did its own analysis of it and
they sort of came to the conclusion like you genated
that that that I'm cying or it was sort of
caught out through pro cyclic measures because it obviously borrowed
(13:24):
a lot of money at the time that interest rates well,
we're very high and some of its largest you know,
it did seem to suffer many of the things that
labor should should cop some flag for. It seemed like
they really upped at the staffing levels to an extent
which they probably was unsustainable, but large parts of their
their unsustainability seemed to be coming from rising interest rates,
which you know were rising debt service and costs, and
(13:45):
you're like, well, you know, this is an agency that's
designed to borrow a lot of money and build a
lot of houses, and at a time when interest rates
are high, that's sort of the cost of doing business.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
And inflation building material, inflation building material. But it was
also back to the flip flopping because you had Phil
Twyfood in charge of housing and he actually had a
few similarities with Chris Bishop in terms of changing rules
to support development in the private sector. And I know
he had a few big pieces of legislation that didn't
end up doing anything if we put q we built aside.
(14:15):
It was about trying to support the private sector. Then
you had Megan Woods come in and she was all
about big state housing builds. So you know, the direction
was get the houses built, you know, no matter what
the cost is, getting them built. And now we have
back to new government and in Chris Bishop's take is
very different. So it's just you know, a bit of continuity.
I think it would be nice in a strategy.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
So I had built ying or into a bit of
a house spilling machine. And I mean there were some
again in that SEAPAG group. Like one of the criticisms,
you know, it's interesting. I heard some people on it
was Ingrid Larry saying this on the radio, that there
was a it was a right wing critique even though
it came from SEAPEG. One of the critiques was that
they tried to make caying or do too much and
when of filter wife As reforms was to turn it
(14:56):
into this massive urban developer. It has the state public
house remit, but he also gave it this remit to
be a broad based urban developer, which would have obviously anchor.
Its anchor would be public housing places, but it would
be a wider it would be involved in larger urban developments.
And it was never sort of funded for that, like
(15:17):
that was just run from within its baselines. And so
you should have think, well off if that is what
if that is the service that you're buying from the agency,
you should pay for that service rather than just sort
of expecting it to wear those costs from its baselines
because I'd be a terrible property developer. But one imagines
it's not cheap. So yeah, anyways, yeah, that's a good
(15:41):
punch everyone.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
I've ye highlight all.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I have another low lighter. Twenty twenty five is going
to be the year of of delivery. The other one
is the Reserve banks big policy flip flop. So this
was in May, when the o CR was five point
five percent, that was at its peak. The Reserve Bank
pens in one more OCR hike and pushed out its
first cut until August twenty twenty five. So in May
(16:07):
it said that it would only cut in next August
twenty twenty five. So then less than three months later,
Reserve Bank comes back out and actually cuts the OCR
turns things around completely. And Governor Adrian or was you know,
it didn't take to the criticism very well that there
had been a flip flop.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Do you remember in the press conference he was asked
about this outright and he said something along the lines of, well,
these are just projections, like acting like the journalists were
dumb for questioning such a massive change in as we.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Saw that brad Elson And I think I wouldn't want
to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think someone
accused the Berserve Bank of guest lighting.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
It worked, it kind of, It kind of was because
even the way they explained things. Yeah, so of course,
I mean it's really hard. They have a tough job.
We all appreciate this at the time when in May
the Reserve Bank didn't have them Arch quarter GDP data,
but it knew that growth was negative in four of
the previous five quarters, so it knew that there was,
(17:06):
you know, a lot of heat coming out of the market.
The annual inflation figured that it had at the time
was four percent for the March quarter, so domestic inflation
was high, but you know four percent was coming back
to target. So I think that was a major flip flop.
And the thing is this has implications for people trying to,
you know, refix their debt if you think there's a
(17:26):
material difference between thinking the OCR is coming down next
c versus what's actually happening. So interestingly though, I think
a lot of people did not believe the Reserve Bank
the figures would suggest because people have been fixing it
very short duration float.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
It sort of undermines its credibility in the market.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
But they totally made their own bed on this one.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Is that between that OCR call and the next OCR call,
the government delivered a budget and got New Zealand quite
unquoite trademark back on track.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Back on track, that's right, contract, it's twenty twenty five
back on tract.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
There's nothing that winds people up more than saying that
that that the government's fiscal policy has to which is
something this podcast does not does not endorse it. But no,
you're right, it's embarrassing. It is and no one ever
really got to the bottom of it. And the Reserve Bank,
it's dismissiveness of this view that that got that something
(18:19):
went badly wrong.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Well, I think the issue was the Reserve Bank has
been changing its view around the amount of productive capacity
the economy has. So it did some new modeling that
and that around productivity and the lack of capacity in
the economy to absorb stimulus, and that I think put
this put this off, and then critics of the Reserve
(18:43):
Bank would say, well, you know that they're not open.
The committee isn't open to criticism. The people at the
Reserve Bank control what happens in the external members and
the committee don't have enough say It's hard to know
whether that is in fact the case without seeing in
but I think that was a that was a big fail. Now, actually, interestingly,
in October, ninety percent of Bank's new mortgage lending was
(19:04):
either floating or fixed for a year or less. So
we're going to see these, you know, like ocr cuts
come come through, come through quite quickly, even if people
are paying more to fixate these short durations and the
floating rates are still really high.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Yeah, yeah, that's true. I wonder I wonder whether that
will benifest itself in a bit of an economic recovery
as people would move on to low rates faster and
spend more money.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Day press conference. I do remember sitting there and am
I idiot? Was just this a silly line of question?
I think it was I'll make Dan Brunskill was somebody
I think it was usked first, and then he gave
you some a really dismissive answer, and then he came
back to it later and he was just like, I
don't know how I can be any clear that these
are just forecasts.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
And I was like, yeah, I said, were you jaw
boning in May or yeah? Did you make a mistake?
It has to be either one of those. Either they
got it wrong or they were trying to talk the
market up anyway. Policy fail.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Jason, do you have a yes?
Speaker 3 (20:00):
My highlight, it's not much, it's not a huge policy one.
It's more of just sort of a vibe of government.
I have two, actually, if you'll indulge me, one of them.
One of them give us some vibe, Give us some vibes,
all right, Janey. And one of them is actually the
same as yours, the coalition government's Coalition Agreement. I know
that was signed about this time last year, so it
doesn't technically count as of this year thing. But I
(20:21):
completely agree with you. I think that the way that
they've been able to hold together a coalition. We've never
had a three way coalition before. We've had coalition and
supplying confidence, but never the three. So I think the
way that they've been able to do it is really good.
And one of the things that Chris Luxon I don't
think gets enough credit for is giving David Seymour and
Winston Peter's a long leash so they can go off
(20:42):
and say David Seymour and Winston Peter's things, retain their
party identities and the government doesn't fall into chaos. And
you'll remember a few times with our Dern Shane Jones
would say something about Fonterra or in New Zealand, and
she would say things like, well, he has to wear
the he has to go home and read the Cabinet
manual or something like that and give them these like
not quite rebukes, but it was just it was just
sort of condescending enough to make headlines. Then there's just
(21:04):
nothing of that source. Like even when Winston Peters is
categorically wrong for doing something silly, Luxon just completely gives
them the complete lay of the land to be able
to do it, which sometimes it's bad, but I think overall,
the fact that he is building a coalition not just
for now but for next term as well, where act
in New Zealand First can actually retain their identities as
(21:27):
political parties rather than just folded into the gray government banner.
I think that's being.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Pretty good Zealand versus polling above five percent of most polls. Yeah,
I think when they went to I think this is
probably a function of the fact that they went into
coalition with Labor last time round. I'm just pretty clear.
I think from the entity year data that they didn't
the New Zealand First voters didn't want them to Labor.
But I think it shows the merits of the strategy.
A week at that that New Zealand first looks like
it'll probably make it back into Parliament, which is something
(21:53):
they failed to do after each government.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
I've been But this will hurt national, won't it, you know,
giving the miners that longly.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
It's quite I need to find sometimes like Christopher Arson
and when it is morning media around the other day
saying that David Sema was not the Minister of Health,
it's quite I need to find. Yeah, yeah, but you
think it just doesn't it's not the sort of strong
leadership I think we used to.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Yeah, well, I think that. I mean, there is a
decision that had to be made, and I know that
people say MMP is still new to New Zealand. I
mean we've had it for about thirty years now, but
it's still compared to the Germans and other systems. I mean,
and they take more time to form a government than
they do actually spending governing. So finding a happy little
medium between that and what we used to have, I
think is good. And I think one of the flow
(22:39):
and effects is that we won't have these big, massive
I mean, we'll never see a fifty percent majority government again,
I don't think, and I think that maybe this is
just the way that it has to be done in
the future.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
It all comes down to those negotiations with a coalition
making sure those are done.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Well, yeah, yeah, I think so. We've probably seen the
mirrits of I mean, apart from the treaty Prince of
all sorts of situations, which has been a bit of
a disaster.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Point didly forget about that one? But yes, all those
people and.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
The dispute of whether or not it was was a bottom
line which we're differing views on with natural stove argument
was essentially and acted saying it wasn't. But the merits
of ironing everything out ahead of time that you you
can probably see the mirrorts of that. Perhaps in future
there won't be quite so much criticism of a long
negotiating period because it has seemed to have worked mostly
(23:31):
again with the exception of the three D principles thing.
But I think the criticism of that is more that
you tend not to roll the dice on constitutional matters
any more. Highlights not lights. And Jen know you've got
(23:54):
extensive notes.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Oh yeah, I do, well, because I hate to make
sure I wrote down exactly what these o CR things
where at.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
The various points.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Sometimes it all blares into one. Oh actually, yes, another
low light. I think I was hoping to see some
more private sector talent come into the public sector, which
we haven't seen. There've been some quite a few really
senior jobs come available in the public sector, and I
guess the vibe that I had been given from this
(24:22):
government was that they wanted to have businesses on board.
Be great, have had some high profile execs come into
the public sector, but you know, pay is probably not
as good and also why would you put yourself up
for that scrutiny? And the government hasn't treated some senior
public officials very well at all. If you think of
Health New Zealand that they were, that's a whole cluster,
(24:47):
that's a whole on its own yang KM order. They
haven't been treated well. So I think that's a shame.
It would have been nice to get some sort of
fresh thinking.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
There are a few grumbles from the business community towards
It was around the Health New Zealand clear out earlier
this year that the government seemed to be desperate to
get private sixt people onto boards, and then the private
sect of people that were already on boards that was
treating rather I remember and these were not left wing,
you know, that was probably seem to right. If anything,
(25:17):
people who who were basically you know, throwing their hands
up and saying, well, you know, ordinarily I probably would
be on the board. But why would why would I
do basically do a charity board and put myself up
to be treated like that? Yeah, because it's not that
that that the board, the board positions are not well remunerated.
Even even like Wakatahi, which is one of the one
of the bitter paid ones, it's not, you know, not
(25:37):
what you'd beginning. If you're on a private sector board
of company with some of.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
The sizes, it's an interesting one because yeah, what do
you do? I mean, you can't you can't make exceptions
for p I mean that's the one thing about public sector.
Everything is very uniform. But no, you're completely right. I
can't remember any example. I mean the last high flyer
from the private sector that came into the NETS is
probably Hamish Rutherford, who was who was left this week?
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Yeah, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
What are you?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Yeah, I don't know. It's a good point. I mean,
you know, the budget's going to be interesting. I mean,
Nikola Willis has sworn black and blue that she's not
going to exceed those operating allowances, and you know, I
believe that she will do everything she can to make
sure she doesn't, but I think she'll be under a
lot of pressure. I think that she's finding out pretty
quickly that it's easy to promise in opposition and then
(26:28):
when you actually get the books, there's only so many
times you can blame the former government. One thing that
I think does need work is the Prime Minister himself.
I think that what we've seen is particularly in the
last half of this year, is just an absolute abject
disaster in his media performances. He's just gone from low
light to low light. When it comes to the way
that he talks to the press, whether it's a post cab,
he just reiterates his tactics in the House, which is
(26:50):
to address the question, not to answer the question. He
tries to run down the clock. He doesn't give answers,
he gives soundbites, and people are getting annoyed, and you
just look at the way that you know, love them
or hate them. Other prime ministers. You can imagine John
Key doing that Jack Tame interview and it probably would
have been fine. And then Luxon did it and he
said what I'll say to you is twenty six times,
(27:13):
you know, so I'd like to see some genuine engagement. Yeah,
like he likes to give his minister's little homework over
the summer. I'd find a comms book for him.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Yeah, I mean, do you remember, like you know, when
there's that common criticism of modern art that with their
parents say my kid could do that. That's what it's
always the criticism of modern art. I think that's how
the country feels about the Prime minister. Like you watch
him before when you think twelve twelve yeard could probably
do that, right, Like a stubborn twelve year old could
say what I'd say to you is and then just
not answer the question. It's like he's it's like he's
(27:45):
been sort of doing something that his parents don't want
him to be doing and is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge
it and even address it. And it's sort of it's
I'm surprised that he is doubling down on it and
not changing because it's so I mean, every prime minister
reverse their lines, like just Sindadane had had frustrating lines
(28:06):
that she would that she would return to uh, you know,
and John Keith headlines as well, like they're not bothered line.
But I don't think any any prime minister has had
quite as limited and refort wire of lines as Krystal
Lackson does.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I wonder if this ties into his approach to be
a manager rather than to get his head into the
policy issues. Yes, like you know, it's the sort of
policy things that he's read that it seems like he
feels really strongly about. His approach is to manage rather
than to come in from a strong ideological perspective or
have these things that he feels passionate about achieving.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
And it feels like the economic stuff is being driven
by Nikola Willis, David Seymour, Chris Bishop and some of
Brown and that kind of group, and you know Jones.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Nicola Willis I think has done a great job at
Conn's you know policy, the merits of the policies aside.
You can tell she reads her briefings, briefings, She comes
in well appeared and communicates really clearly.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
An interview with her Monday evening interview with with Heither
Duplicity Allen on such as just to give your thank
you very much I think it's probably the I think
it's probably the best government interview of the week because
he's pretty tough, and Nicolay actually answers the tough like
she she she she actually addresses the substance of what
(29:23):
Heather's asking her. And just morning after morning, Christopher Laxen
is given like quite basic questions and doesn't even address
what's being asked. It's just it's staggeringly it's like it
just passes over his head. And I think, if you're
gonna if the country is wising up to it with that,
you know they always I remember talking to an old
(29:44):
pole d saying, like the country tends to me about
six months behind the media in terms of of when
something becomes a problem. And I think in twenty twenty five, this,
this media performance of the Prime Minister could become a
serious problem if it's not addressed soon. And I think
the way to address it is for him to actually
substantively answer the questions just so easy. He clearly is
(30:06):
not an idiot, and he probably does know the answers
to at least some of them, and he should just
I wonder, I might to your earlier question to is
like the thing that I don't know the answer to
is whether or not his inability, his decision not to
answer questions as a result of him not actually knowing
the policy detail because he has the sort of CEO
(30:28):
how he got the kind of attitude where he doesn't
actually know the detail, or whether he's so new to
politics has been burnt in interviews because he got you know,
he rose really fast, he got burned, and his interviews
very early on. I remember that Susie ferguson abortion one
with him very soon after he came into politics. He's
been absolutely you know, put us foot in numerous interviews
early on in his career and has therefore decided, while
(30:51):
I'm a bit gaff prone, so I'll just play go
into every interview with an incredibly defensive attitude, and that
that isn't going to work anymore. So I don't but
I don't know whether it suppose he doesn't know the answer,
or whether he's just been so burned because of his
own I mean, his father got burned. But whether he's
been so burned that he just goes into every int
of you incredibly defensively.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Yeah, and ironically, I mean that's a good move from
a CEO. You look at where your weaknesses are and delegate.
But this is just one thing that you're not able
to delegate. And I will say, since I feel a
bit bad for being so mean to the right honorable,
I will say that he is exceptionally good at delegating
and team building stuff like Simeon Brown excellent and transsport
(31:30):
Erica Stamford. Anything she touches is doing really well. There
are numerous other examples as well. We haven't seen that
many people that have really put a massive foot wrong,
and I think that it's probably done to his leadership
at some level.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
I do think he's quite a good leader. It's just
he's a very bad spokesperson. It's just on that.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
To what extent does the public care that he's infuriating
to listen to in an interview, because I guess people
do engage in the media, and well hopefully they do.
Does it be a great stations and works there?
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Two shutouts?
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Now?
Speaker 3 (32:01):
Great? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (32:02):
But you know, to what extent will that be reflected
in votes for people sort of over politics and over
politicians as celebrities and they do they just want to
get on with their lives. Yeah, we're surrounded by every
day and we're trying to get answers.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Yeah, and you know, like a lot of the PPM
numbers of Chris Weplins doesn't exactly love Prime Minister. And
like all around the world, we're in the era of
like very unpopular leaders, like people despise kiss Armor. In
the UK, they also like Cimmu bated not earlier position
over there seems very unpopular again and the like the
(32:37):
US Kamala Harris loath, Donald Trump loathed.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Even elbows having some trouble, although it looks.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Like he might be a one term Peter Dudden, like
you know, loathed. Like it's just we kind of are
in the era where the sort of celebrity politician is
there's no Obama in America, and Tony Blair is like
long gone from the scene. In the UK just under
doing and John Key their era is over here. It's just,
you know, it's an era of like relatively unpopular people
(33:03):
sort of juking it out. For second.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
That is the bleak and that is the bleakest way
to finish this year. I mean, you're right, I agree
with you, but.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
I don't know Barama that good.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
The issue that that I'm looking forward to in twenty
twenty five, and I've been trying to get answers on
this from the Prime Minister. Is around growth, infrastructure, foreign investment.
There's all this talk. You know, we get you know,
foreign capital, then get this infrastructure built, look at new
ways of getting the private section involved. And this is
going to grow the economy because it desperately needs. From
(33:38):
pure economic traditional economic perspective, it does need growth, and
you know we need to some better jobs, high paying jobs,
keep people here. All this, but we get to see
the detail around. Okay, so this foreign investor is investing
in this project, and here's the timeline, and this is
the this is the model. This is how much it's
going to cost the taxpayer. This is how much more
(33:59):
or less would be then if we just took the
det out ourselves and did ourselves without you know, having
this complicated new public private partnership structure. I think these
are the things I'm looking forward to in twenty twenty five.
It's like we need to start seeing some from flesh
now on these concepts.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
Well, it's Nicola Willis. I think the signal of a
few weeks ago that the budget will be a growth
budget let's you know the message behind it. I mean,
of course, like all budgets should argue, that's not exactly
going to say this is going to be a climb,
going to be a shrinking budget, like but you know, yeah,
I guess you know, growth is good. Interesting, there are
(34:37):
some treasury briefings that were productively released recently and it
did look into the sort of economic strategy. A high product,
highly productive economy is quite a good blue sky Treasury briefing.
And as you know how sometimes they would just go
for gold and it was it does sound like foreign
investment is going to be a big part of that
growth strategy. From this briefing, I think New Zealand. New
(35:00):
Zealand ranks so poorly in terms of its foreign investment
regime and the OECD. The briefing ranked US alongside other
other countries that were doing a much better job of
foreign investment. Among those countries was Taiwan.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
All the country.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
I should have rejected that one, but but you know,
it's interesting and that was a very young It was
an interesting briefing because it did the listed like five things.
Education lifting educational standards was one of them, which is
government's clearly quite focused on UH and and but the
other one, I think the one that that probably has
(35:35):
the most chance of bearing immediate fruit the fixing infrastructure,
because it was another one I think everything that would
that would lift GDP by point eight of the senis
point over the next few years, which is but but
foreign investment was the one that they thought they could
get going faster.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
So yeah, well, I'm not sure if like lower interest
rates for households in New Zealand alone is going to
do that much. So if you just think about yourself
and and if you have some debt and your mortgage
rate falls, and that's great, Like are you going to
rush out and spend and buy all the stuff next
year that that you weren't buying? They might be better?
(36:12):
Yeah exactly, But but will you or is there still
some uncertainty about your job? You know, you're a little
bit cautious after the last time we had a sugar
ash of of debt and and you know, interest rates
were low and then then went. I just wonder whether
there will be a bit of caution and whether lower
interest rates. I wonder if there's a limit.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
To how much consumer confidence, like business confidences, is tacking
up the consumer, and I think consumer confidence is sort
of then it was, I haven't seen the latest.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
I might buy a tumble dry, you know, maybe.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Huge.
Speaker 3 (36:49):
What are you going to do for fun next year?
I'm going to buy a tumbles.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
Any applients that you guys would like becau people always
say that our clients purchasers. That's sort of like it's
not like the new car is not like the house.
It's sort of like they're on the way there.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
A new washer dryer, the one that I have at
the moment shrinks all my clothes.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Really yeah, oh man, yeah, I was so excited for
that washing dry when you moved on impressive.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah. You put it on a five hour cycle and
it comes out well. So it washes it and then
it dries it and takes a while. I had to
I had a few clothes and like, I know for
a fact, it's not just me getting fatter. I'm not
going to I did notice Thomas look media up and
down when I said that. Just for the thing, I'll
stop at you.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
I'm in borised form the prescallery reporter. He has a
great one. You talk to him.
Speaker 3 (37:27):
I will.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
In the appliances, No.
Speaker 2 (37:30):
Just maybe they're dryer.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Maybe they probably won't do that.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
I'll probably spend my money on holidays instead.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
Yes, I think I'm thinking holidays, which is a good again,
like Le's let's good consumer spending. I might do some renovations.
I have a leaky roof. I've been borrowing money for insulation.
You can get some good deals.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
So boring an adult honestly, well, you.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Can get these cheap climate loans to do climate friendly stuff.
Do your house, all right? Any other politicians of the year, I.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
Think clear tri it's peace pretty well.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
Brown would definitely be up there.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
I would have put her him, sorry, right up there
with Erica Stanford. I think the fact that she beat
the PM, the Finance Minister and everybody else for the
mood of the boardroom speaks volumes about somebody that doesn't
really have that many finance focused portfolios. And I think
she's done well. Now I'm thinking she does.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Yeah. No, I'm trying to think of anyone who I mean.
I think probably the whole government front bench has done
pretty well. No obvious kind of serious floods. I think
Shane Ricci is probably on the naughty step if there's
if there's a reshuffle in the next wee while he'd
be the most high profile candidate for a potential tomotion.
But it's just idle speculation. If you were to if
(38:40):
you were to say, if you were to list the
front benches who are in the most trouble, I mean
it sort of emphatically him. But whether or not that
that qualifies for reshuffle material, that's you. You have to
be quite far down on the naughty step scale that
the worst imper of the Yeah, which of the Greens
there is worst in per of the probably Darling.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Darlinge or goal is probably Darlene, just simply, I mean
I do have to admire just the audacity of it,
you know, just the audacity.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
I mean, yeah, here's a hustler.
Speaker 3 (39:16):
She did hustle. I mean she ultimately lost, but yeah, just.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Yeah, like there's someone a one woman business confidence metrik
to back yourself like that. Yeah, so you know, yeah,
emissions up next to you. I don't know where they're going.
Probably no, we're meeting our first emissions budget. So the
missions are checking in the right directions. So there you go.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
Some optimism anyway, summer holidays, but both of you just
quickly exciting.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
I'm hosting the Summer Drive Show on z B fort eight.
If you got any hot reckons on things, eighty's the
number to call.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
I can call in you can.
Speaker 3 (39:57):
I have to fact check that number. Actually, I'm pretty
sure it's that.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
Yeah disgruntled from Wayhiki. If the if the caller starts
with what I'd say to you, it means that it's
a different disgruntled from Wayhiki. I am going to christ Church,
Napier and Wahiki Island.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
I'm very much like all three of them, lovely locations.
How about you heading up north some beach time, family time.
Looking forward to it.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
I very much hope you will have a lovely summer break.
Thank you for listening to on the tiles. This is
the last on the tiles of the year. Thank you
for joining us and listening this year. Georgina and I'll
be back next year. We hope, can never guarantee, so yes,
please join us. I think my holiday ends on about
(40:44):
the twentieths. I'll yeah come around there. Thank you very
much for listening.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Bye bye,
Hello and welcome to on the titles the New Zealand
Heroes Politics Podcast. This is our last on the titles
of the year. You've had the last local edition with Georgina,
that's the last non local edition. Joining me today is
our Wellington business editorative Tiny Twit Merry Christmas.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hello Thomas, Merry Christmas to you.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Too, and News will see the Bees Politically Jason Walls
Mary Christmas, Mery Christmas got married?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
I did get married. Yeah, that be your heart out
of the I would be in a lot of trouble
if I said it wasn't.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
It wasn't a budget.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
The budget was I can't even remember the but it
was some time ago.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Did your life get back on track?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
My life is was very much on track. So just
enter if you're listening, just enter with a tea to
stop any of those rumors. If you're listening to this,
thank you very much for making my year as mary
and bright as it is.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Oh my god, I'm so creended out for words. If
you're listening, just then to I'm so sorry, right, Highlights
and No Lights. In a pre podcast conversation, we have
decided that I will go first my Highlights and No
Lights policy wise, did start with something that my heart
that would be the tax package. I think it worked.
There was a lot of a lot of nay saying
prior to the election that it would cause inflation. There
(01:08):
was a lot of there were very many attacks on
the text package for not being fully funded the treasury.
Of course, I suppose you tweak the text package to
make sure that it was fully funded. But by the
time it got to the budget, Treasury was convinced that
it was fully funded through revenue and cutting. And then
when the text package triggered in July, there was no
(01:28):
demonstrable effect on inflation. The first interest rate decision the
reserve being made after the text package triggered in July
was actually the first rate cut in a couple of years.
They fought an election on that text package. It was
a tax by for being excessively inflationary and unfunded. And
yet you'd have to say, from the perspective of now
they won.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
And Nicola, will this look like the cat that got
the cream? When that story came out that there was
Treasury forecasting no increases in inflation, and you remember, I
think it was was it your story or did you see.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
The Treasury advice when the Treasury advice got released that
they believed that the text package had I think is
slightly negative.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Personally, she was happy.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
And just to remind us what the text package was
because it might have been a while ago. There was
a bracket adjustments for income tax, so that means you
can get up to about one forty two dollars of
you know, pay less that much less tax per year. Also,
interest deductibility. Property investors can now deduct interest as a
(02:24):
expense and the bright line test has been taken back
to two years from ten years. And the way it's
being paid for is depreciation deductibility on commercial property. So yeah,
commander for on commercial property owners paying the bill, but
no one has so much sympathy.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
For them, I buy, you know, and we've I think
we've discussed on this podcast the commercial appreciation deductibility. That
is that is a good policy, you know, trusurely what
a lot of people think. It's a very robust, growth
friendly policy.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
So they cannot commercial and industrial building owners cannot deduct
depreciation as an expense about.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Half a billion dollars with text revenew on.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Yeah, yeah, so it's actually that's quite significant anyway. But yeah,
politically what a win.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I mean, yeah, and good politics as well, because you know,
we just were talking about how nor one's out here
with the tiny little violins for the commercial landlords after
many years of good gains. So there wasn't anybody marching
in the streets for that. But on the back of
the fact that Winston pulled the pen on the plans
to tax foreign buyers, and I thought at that stage,
when they didn't get that of the line, there's going
to have to be some massive concessions. But I think
(03:30):
that was quite a good a good win for the
for the Nats actually getting that one across the line.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
The other one with commercial depreciation is that at the
time was introduced, it was meant to be permanent. It
was seen to be permanent, and then both Labor and
National campaign on getting rid of it, so they, you know,
Labor in particular broke promise to make it permanent, and
well obviously the changes around interested actibility for residential landloards.
And you know, we wonder why we don't get much
foreign investment in New Zealand, it's because every three years
(03:57):
these parties come together backflip on stuff that I'm quite
important text policies that they said would be permanent, So
why would you invest money It doesn't.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
It's with a lot of confidence if you're sitting overseas.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Yeah, in terms of the stop being inflationary, I mean
we do have to remember that infrastrates did, the ocr
did get very high, monetary policy was very tight, so
you know that's uh, that's what it was. That's what
it was up against. But i mean politically great, great win. Really,
property market hasn't taken off, but I think that's again
due to the high interest rates.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Don't talk to me and Thomas about that. Oh man.
So my low light personal I've done my wedding highlight,
but my lowlight was getting my house this year and
seeing how much money it's the lost and being probably
one of the only people in New Zealand's history to
lose money on property in New Zealand. How good for me?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, good on you for saying it, Jason, because I
think a lot of people do and no one says it.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Oh yeah, no, it's very embarrassing.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
So investors, right, we only hear about the bitcoin zillionaire to.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Hear about the failures. But I'm well and truly ready to.
You can do one of those herald stories where it's
just like I bought my house and then you find
our six paragraphs that it was like because I had
heaps of help from my parents. I could do one
where it's like, yeah, here's my housing fail.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Next year, Jason, that's not impact. Yeah, that's right to
your point, Engineer. I mean, we're not saying that the
tax package brought down inflation, and it wasn't designed to
bring down inflation. It just wasn't designed to stoke inflation.
And I think I think they definitely won on well
the truth of the advice that it had a net
negative impact on inflation, but it was so marginal that
you couldn't actually tell. The package was designed to make
sure that people had a bit of additional income, but
(05:28):
that that that additional income wouldn't be wouldn't wouldn't lead
to inflation, so at least make make inflation no worse.
And I think it did deliver on that, and I
think why the Bank brought forward its cuts as well,
So it's sort of like it, well, I mean again,
and well, this wasn't You can't say that the text
package had any positive impact on the inflationary picture. But
that's the fact that that the government was able to
(05:49):
increase people's after tax incomes without causing inflation and an
environment of high inflation. I think sort of something of
an achievement.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
It's going to be interesting to see how things go
with this chat about needing to broaden the tax base.
I wrote a preview for the Haiifu, that's the Treasuries
half year fiscals, And you know, it's interesting to see
economists who are traditionally perceived to be more conservative and
perhaps more on the right, saying that the tax base
(06:16):
needs to broaden. So that means instead of charging us
more tax, we need to get a different type of
tax or I guess a larger pool of people, the
breadth of it broadening. And you know that's coming from
people who aren't just that your typical pro capital gains
tax left wing types.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
I wonder if the government's thought about a tax on
like say, if your house increases in value and you
sell the house, you pay some tax on the value
of the capital, maybe a capital gains tax or something
like that.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
You think that would a capital gain on the So
we moved to lowlights. Yes, my lowlight would be the furies.
I think that you know, the government has deley delaied
for a year on this and they seemingly not come
to any you know solution this rail enablement and broady.
The public seemed to have been poorly served, I think
by the amount of information they've been getting. You know.
(07:05):
You see cubid Rail saying rail enablement's utterly essential this
year in briefings that were released as part of the
Productive Release instead hinting at that in their first slick
Committee appearance of the year with the former board chair
David McLean and the Estimates Scrutiny Week. Now at the
annual review Scrutiny Week got a different key Rail board
chair and a not very different executive team saying that
rail enableman isn't so essential. See Stephen Joyce in the
(07:28):
Hero at the Weekend saying the chief executive of Kiby
Rail from twenty sixteen said that rail enablement was about
waste of time and money. Well, who is the chief
executive of key round twenty sixteen, Peter already, who's the
chief executive key Rail? Now? You know, no one knows
what there are billions of dollars at stake. No one
seems to agree on whether this billion dollar decision is
actually essential or really non essential. After twelve months, the
(07:49):
public's no better off.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
I think it's a shame and it's interesting how it's
sort of has come together behind the scenes as well,
because of very much from the people that I'm talking to,
and I think you probably have a similar perspective you too,
is that there was not a deal hammered out, but
an attractive looking option back in the middle of the year,
until Winston Peters took a look and said, well, hang
on a second, I think I can do better, and
Cabinet gave them until March next year to do so.
(08:12):
And it was you know, Nicola Willis and the nons
that have very much had to sort of eat it
and just say you have what have you been doing?
In fact, the first question that I had in the
press conference is what have you been doing for a year?
And I had a number of people text me. I
was like, yeah, absolutely, well what are they actually doing?
But it sounds like Winston is actually the one he
was trying to get a better deal.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Nicola Willis said that should you know that that government
had gone out and been speaking they made soundings with
ship builders and made soundings with people in the sector
about what was possible and what they think is possible
what the Ministry of Advisory Group has sort of basically
recommended as two hundred meter row packs ships. So Winston
Peters seems to think that there's one ship some shipyard
out there that that the government hasn't spoken to that
(08:52):
can somehow deliver these much more expensive rail enable blah
blah blah blah blah for within the same funding envelope
with private finance. Like you just you have to say, well,
why what is giving him the belief that he thinks
something better can be found or as the government just
delaying this bust up till March.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Yeah, yeah, And I mean this is fundamental, key infrastructure
for the country, So you really it's not just some
sort of politicing thing at the side around something that
has no material impact on anyone's life. So you really
do need to hope that that Winston Peters knows what
he's what he's doing. And it's also not the sort
of thing you can just conjure up quickly. You know,
there's no band aid solution. You don't just find fairies
(09:29):
important infrastructure quickly, So yeah, big.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Fail massive and yeah I think I mean again to
the sort of commercial appreciation text changes, then the interest
deductibility TEX changes to this, You're like all of these
massive critical text settings that should be long and enduring infrastructure,
which we you know, fund decide to build, then slightly
defund and cancel. You know, it's ridiculous, and you earn again,
(09:52):
you know that these politicians are going to go out
and campaign on on driving economic growth and attracting investment here,
and yet they're the way tweaking these sittings in such
a kind of sea story kind of way, and you can't,
you really can't wonder why so many people are put
off investing in this country.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yeah, no matter what Shane John's does and where he
goes and says whatever he says, you, if you look
at the cold hard facts of it, the flip flops
make it a lot harder.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Will they have autopilot? That's what everyone wants to know.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Why can no one figure out how to turn off
the auto pilot? That was wasn't it that the auto pilot?
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yes? Well, I mean the ship are we talking about it? Exactly?
Speaker 3 (10:30):
Amazingly? We could we can choice here.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
I remember one time, you know, I was saying during
an earthquake, the would have to use the Navy to
get fury suppliers, the stuff that the theories would have
taken into Wellington. And now you think, criking not the Navy,
don't send.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Them, bring a jet star if we need something.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
I know. Well, that's quite ampressive that the New Zealand
that you know Navy managed to procure itself a submarine
before the Australians in a much more.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Key we number and the mails on, that's for sure.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Least ours has autopilots. You know you have you have
your highlights and no lights.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Yes, well actually this sort of ties in quite well
to my highlights and low lights. My highlight is kind
of boring. It is that largely, other than the fairies,
the coalition has stuck to it's coalition agreement, so that
is yeah, so that has provided some predictability, which is good.
I think people haven't always understood exactly the implications of
(11:24):
every one of those bullet points in those agreements. Though
quite long, particularly in the employment relation space. Brooklyn Valden's
actually been pretty active winding back some sort of protections
for workers and to support businesses, make it easier for
business people to take take a risk on people. But
generally I think that's been a success. You know, they
took some time nutted out those agreements, and where it's
(11:45):
failed is with the fairies. You know, that was not
nutted out beforehand, and that's imploded my low light also
sort of a couple of lowlights. And they also come
back to policy flip flops actually kind of order. Oh yes, right,
so right, we can understand that Kyng Order was not
run very well previously. They tried to establish a whole
agency and do lots of home building at the time
(12:08):
the market was super hot, the private sector was hot.
But now to just cut off the pipeline of state
house building and push it all towards community housing providers
or largely take away that pipeline of work at a
time when builders are going to Australia and just take
away that certainty, to me, doesn't make sense. Even though
(12:30):
the model previously had its shortcomings. It feels a bit
like you're throwing out throwing the baby out with the
bath water, and you're not being countersicklick.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
It's interesting, like the I think the christ Bishop probably
made a mistake in getting Bill English to do that
ki Aura report because it just have had a whiff
of a failure complete that the government had sort of
got one of its friends and to justify doing you know,
something fairly radical to Kyle Aura. When you look at
like Louise Upston bringing and Sir Martin Weavers sort of
sort of some investigation of fai kaha, it just has
(13:02):
a much better sense of impartiality. Yeah, when you have
a public servant doing it. So you should have had
the Bill English review going again up against the trial.
Poverty Action Group did its own analysis of it and
they sort of came to the conclusion like you genated
that that that I'm cying or it was sort of
caught out through pro cyclic measures because it obviously borrowed
(13:24):
a lot of money at the time that interest rates well,
we're very high and some of its largest you know,
it did seem to suffer many of the things that
labor should should cop some flag for. It seemed like
they really upped at the staffing levels to an extent
which they probably was unsustainable, but large parts of their
their unsustainability seemed to be coming from rising interest rates,
which you know were rising debt service and costs, and
(13:45):
you're like, well, you know, this is an agency that's
designed to borrow a lot of money and build a
lot of houses, and at a time when interest rates
are high, that's sort of the cost of doing business.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
And inflation building material, inflation building material. But it was
also back to the flip flopping because you had Phil
Twyfood in charge of housing and he actually had a
few similarities with Chris Bishop in terms of changing rules
to support development in the private sector. And I know
he had a few big pieces of legislation that didn't
end up doing anything if we put q we built aside.
(14:15):
It was about trying to support the private sector. Then
you had Megan Woods come in and she was all
about big state housing builds. So you know, the direction
was get the houses built, you know, no matter what
the cost is, getting them built. And now we have
back to new government and in Chris Bishop's take is
very different. So it's just you know, a bit of continuity.
I think it would be nice in a strategy.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
So I had built ying or into a bit of
a house spilling machine. And I mean there were some
again in that SEAPAG group. Like one of the criticisms,
you know, it's interesting. I heard some people on it
was Ingrid Larry saying this on the radio, that there
was a it was a right wing critique even though
it came from SEAPEG. One of the critiques was that
they tried to make caying or do too much and
when of filter wife As reforms was to turn it
(14:56):
into this massive urban developer. It has the state public
house remit, but he also gave it this remit to
be a broad based urban developer, which would have obviously anchor.
Its anchor would be public housing places, but it would
be a wider it would be involved in larger urban developments.
And it was never sort of funded for that, like
(15:17):
that was just run from within its baselines. And so
you should have think, well off if that is what
if that is the service that you're buying from the agency,
you should pay for that service rather than just sort
of expecting it to wear those costs from its baselines
because I'd be a terrible property developer. But one imagines
it's not cheap. So yeah, anyways, yeah, that's a good
(15:41):
punch everyone.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
I've ye highlight all.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I have another low lighter. Twenty twenty five is going
to be the year of of delivery. The other one
is the Reserve banks big policy flip flop. So this
was in May, when the o CR was five point
five percent, that was at its peak. The Reserve Bank
pens in one more OCR hike and pushed out its
first cut until August twenty twenty five. So in May
(16:07):
it said that it would only cut in next August
twenty twenty five. So then less than three months later,
Reserve Bank comes back out and actually cuts the OCR
turns things around completely. And Governor Adrian or was you know,
it didn't take to the criticism very well that there
had been a flip flop.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Do you remember in the press conference he was asked
about this outright and he said something along the lines of, well,
these are just projections, like acting like the journalists were
dumb for questioning such a massive change in as we.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Saw that brad Elson And I think I wouldn't want
to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think someone
accused the Berserve Bank of guest lighting.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
It worked, it kind of, It kind of was because
even the way they explained things. Yeah, so of course,
I mean it's really hard. They have a tough job.
We all appreciate this at the time when in May
the Reserve Bank didn't have them Arch quarter GDP data,
but it knew that growth was negative in four of
the previous five quarters, so it knew that there was,
(17:06):
you know, a lot of heat coming out of the market.
The annual inflation figured that it had at the time
was four percent for the March quarter, so domestic inflation
was high, but you know four percent was coming back
to target. So I think that was a major flip flop.
And the thing is this has implications for people trying to,
you know, refix their debt if you think there's a
(17:26):
material difference between thinking the OCR is coming down next
c versus what's actually happening. So interestingly though, I think
a lot of people did not believe the Reserve Bank
the figures would suggest because people have been fixing it
very short duration float.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
It sort of undermines its credibility in the market.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
But they totally made their own bed on this one.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Is that between that OCR call and the next OCR call,
the government delivered a budget and got New Zealand quite
unquoite trademark back on track.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Back on track, that's right, contract, it's twenty twenty five
back on tract.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
There's nothing that winds people up more than saying that
that that the government's fiscal policy has to which is
something this podcast does not does not endorse it. But no,
you're right, it's embarrassing. It is and no one ever
really got to the bottom of it. And the Reserve Bank,
it's dismissiveness of this view that that got that something
(18:19):
went badly wrong.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Well, I think the issue was the Reserve Bank has
been changing its view around the amount of productive capacity
the economy has. So it did some new modeling that
and that around productivity and the lack of capacity in
the economy to absorb stimulus, and that I think put
this put this off, and then critics of the Reserve
(18:43):
Bank would say, well, you know that they're not open.
The committee isn't open to criticism. The people at the
Reserve Bank control what happens in the external members and
the committee don't have enough say It's hard to know
whether that is in fact the case without seeing in
but I think that was a that was a big fail. Now, actually, interestingly,
in October, ninety percent of Bank's new mortgage lending was
(19:04):
either floating or fixed for a year or less. So
we're going to see these, you know, like ocr cuts
come come through, come through quite quickly, even if people
are paying more to fixate these short durations and the
floating rates are still really high.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Yeah, yeah, that's true. I wonder I wonder whether that
will benifest itself in a bit of an economic recovery
as people would move on to low rates faster and
spend more money.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Day press conference. I do remember sitting there and am
I idiot? Was just this a silly line of question?
I think it was I'll make Dan Brunskill was somebody
I think it was usked first, and then he gave
you some a really dismissive answer, and then he came
back to it later and he was just like, I
don't know how I can be any clear that these
are just forecasts.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
And I was like, yeah, I said, were you jaw
boning in May or yeah? Did you make a mistake?
It has to be either one of those. Either they
got it wrong or they were trying to talk the
market up anyway. Policy fail.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Jason, do you have a yes?
Speaker 3 (20:00):
My highlight, it's not much, it's not a huge policy one.
It's more of just sort of a vibe of government.
I have two, actually, if you'll indulge me, one of them.
One of them give us some vibe, Give us some vibes,
all right, Janey. And one of them is actually the
same as yours, the coalition government's Coalition Agreement. I know
that was signed about this time last year, so it
doesn't technically count as of this year thing. But I
(20:21):
completely agree with you. I think that the way that
they've been able to hold together a coalition. We've never
had a three way coalition before. We've had coalition and
supplying confidence, but never the three. So I think the
way that they've been able to do it is really good.
And one of the things that Chris Luxon I don't
think gets enough credit for is giving David Seymour and
Winston Peter's a long leash so they can go off
(20:42):
and say David Seymour and Winston Peter's things, retain their
party identities and the government doesn't fall into chaos. And
you'll remember a few times with our Dern Shane Jones
would say something about Fonterra or in New Zealand, and
she would say things like, well, he has to wear
the he has to go home and read the Cabinet
manual or something like that and give them these like
not quite rebukes, but it was just it was just
sort of condescending enough to make headlines. Then there's just
(21:04):
nothing of that source. Like even when Winston Peters is
categorically wrong for doing something silly, Luxon just completely gives
them the complete lay of the land to be able
to do it, which sometimes it's bad, but I think overall,
the fact that he is building a coalition not just
for now but for next term as well, where act
in New Zealand First can actually retain their identities as
(21:27):
political parties rather than just folded into the gray government banner.
I think that's being.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Pretty good Zealand versus polling above five percent of most polls. Yeah,
I think when they went to I think this is
probably a function of the fact that they went into
coalition with Labor last time round. I'm just pretty clear.
I think from the entity year data that they didn't
the New Zealand First voters didn't want them to Labor.
But I think it shows the merits of the strategy.
A week at that that New Zealand first looks like
it'll probably make it back into Parliament, which is something
(21:53):
they failed to do after each government.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
I've been But this will hurt national, won't it, you know,
giving the miners that longly.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
It's quite I need to find sometimes like Christopher Arson
and when it is morning media around the other day
saying that David Sema was not the Minister of Health,
it's quite I need to find. Yeah, yeah, but you
think it just doesn't it's not the sort of strong
leadership I think we used to.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Yeah, well, I think that. I mean, there is a
decision that had to be made, and I know that
people say MMP is still new to New Zealand. I
mean we've had it for about thirty years now, but
it's still compared to the Germans and other systems. I mean,
and they take more time to form a government than
they do actually spending governing. So finding a happy little
medium between that and what we used to have, I
think is good. And I think one of the flow
(22:39):
and effects is that we won't have these big, massive
I mean, we'll never see a fifty percent majority government again,
I don't think, and I think that maybe this is
just the way that it has to be done in
the future.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
It all comes down to those negotiations with a coalition
making sure those are done.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Well, yeah, yeah, I think so. We've probably seen the
mirrits of I mean, apart from the treaty Prince of
all sorts of situations, which has been a bit of
a disaster.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Point didly forget about that one? But yes, all those
people and.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
The dispute of whether or not it was was a bottom
line which we're differing views on with natural stove argument
was essentially and acted saying it wasn't. But the merits
of ironing everything out ahead of time that you you
can probably see the mirrorts of that. Perhaps in future
there won't be quite so much criticism of a long
negotiating period because it has seemed to have worked mostly
(23:31):
again with the exception of the three D principles thing.
But I think the criticism of that is more that
you tend not to roll the dice on constitutional matters
any more. Highlights not lights. And Jen know you've got
(23:54):
extensive notes.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Oh yeah, I do, well, because I hate to make
sure I wrote down exactly what these o CR things
where at.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
The various points.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Sometimes it all blares into one. Oh actually, yes, another
low light. I think I was hoping to see some
more private sector talent come into the public sector, which
we haven't seen. There've been some quite a few really
senior jobs come available in the public sector, and I
guess the vibe that I had been given from this
(24:22):
government was that they wanted to have businesses on board.
Be great, have had some high profile execs come into
the public sector, but you know, pay is probably not
as good and also why would you put yourself up
for that scrutiny? And the government hasn't treated some senior
public officials very well at all. If you think of
Health New Zealand that they were, that's a whole cluster,
(24:47):
that's a whole on its own yang KM order. They
haven't been treated well. So I think that's a shame.
It would have been nice to get some sort of
fresh thinking.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
There are a few grumbles from the business community towards
It was around the Health New Zealand clear out earlier
this year that the government seemed to be desperate to
get private sixt people onto boards, and then the private
sect of people that were already on boards that was
treating rather I remember and these were not left wing,
you know, that was probably seem to right. If anything,
(25:17):
people who who were basically you know, throwing their hands
up and saying, well, you know, ordinarily I probably would
be on the board. But why would why would I
do basically do a charity board and put myself up
to be treated like that? Yeah, because it's not that
that that the board, the board positions are not well remunerated.
Even even like Wakatahi, which is one of the one
of the bitter paid ones, it's not, you know, not
(25:37):
what you'd beginning. If you're on a private sector board
of company with some of.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
The sizes, it's an interesting one because yeah, what do
you do? I mean, you can't you can't make exceptions
for p I mean that's the one thing about public sector.
Everything is very uniform. But no, you're completely right. I
can't remember any example. I mean the last high flyer
from the private sector that came into the NETS is
probably Hamish Rutherford, who was who was left this week?
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Yeah, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
What are you?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Yeah, I don't know. It's a good point. I mean,
you know, the budget's going to be interesting. I mean,
Nikola Willis has sworn black and blue that she's not
going to exceed those operating allowances, and you know, I
believe that she will do everything she can to make
sure she doesn't, but I think she'll be under a
lot of pressure. I think that she's finding out pretty
quickly that it's easy to promise in opposition and then
(26:28):
when you actually get the books, there's only so many
times you can blame the former government. One thing that
I think does need work is the Prime Minister himself.
I think that what we've seen is particularly in the
last half of this year, is just an absolute abject
disaster in his media performances. He's just gone from low
light to low light. When it comes to the way
that he talks to the press, whether it's a post cab,
he just reiterates his tactics in the House, which is
(26:50):
to address the question, not to answer the question. He
tries to run down the clock. He doesn't give answers,
he gives soundbites, and people are getting annoyed, and you
just look at the way that you know, love them
or hate them. Other prime ministers. You can imagine John
Key doing that Jack Tame interview and it probably would
have been fine. And then Luxon did it and he
said what I'll say to you is twenty six times,
(27:13):
you know, so I'd like to see some genuine engagement. Yeah,
like he likes to give his minister's little homework over
the summer. I'd find a comms book for him.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Yeah, I mean, do you remember, like you know, when
there's that common criticism of modern art that with their
parents say my kid could do that. That's what it's
always the criticism of modern art. I think that's how
the country feels about the Prime minister. Like you watch
him before when you think twelve twelve yeard could probably
do that, right, Like a stubborn twelve year old could
say what I'd say to you is and then just
not answer the question. It's like he's it's like he's
(27:45):
been sort of doing something that his parents don't want
him to be doing and is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge
it and even address it. And it's sort of it's
I'm surprised that he is doubling down on it and
not changing because it's so I mean, every prime minister
reverse their lines, like just Sindadane had had frustrating lines
(28:06):
that she would that she would return to uh, you know,
and John Keith headlines as well, like they're not bothered line.
But I don't think any any prime minister has had
quite as limited and refort wire of lines as Krystal
Lackson does.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I wonder if this ties into his approach to be
a manager rather than to get his head into the
policy issues. Yes, like you know, it's the sort of
policy things that he's read that it seems like he
feels really strongly about. His approach is to manage rather
than to come in from a strong ideological perspective or
have these things that he feels passionate about achieving.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
And it feels like the economic stuff is being driven
by Nikola Willis, David Seymour, Chris Bishop and some of
Brown and that kind of group, and you know Jones.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Nicola Willis I think has done a great job at
Conn's you know policy, the merits of the policies aside.
You can tell she reads her briefings, briefings, She comes
in well appeared and communicates really clearly.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
An interview with her Monday evening interview with with Heither
Duplicity Allen on such as just to give your thank
you very much I think it's probably the I think
it's probably the best government interview of the week because
he's pretty tough, and Nicolay actually answers the tough like
she she she she actually addresses the substance of what
(29:23):
Heather's asking her. And just morning after morning, Christopher Laxen
is given like quite basic questions and doesn't even address
what's being asked. It's just it's staggeringly it's like it
just passes over his head. And I think, if you're
gonna if the country is wising up to it with that,
you know they always I remember talking to an old
(29:44):
pole d saying, like the country tends to me about
six months behind the media in terms of of when
something becomes a problem. And I think in twenty twenty five, this,
this media performance of the Prime Minister could become a
serious problem if it's not addressed soon. And I think
the way to address it is for him to actually
substantively answer the questions just so easy. He clearly is
(30:06):
not an idiot, and he probably does know the answers
to at least some of them, and he should just
I wonder, I might to your earlier question to is
like the thing that I don't know the answer to
is whether or not his inability, his decision not to
answer questions as a result of him not actually knowing
the policy detail because he has the sort of CEO
(30:28):
how he got the kind of attitude where he doesn't
actually know the detail, or whether he's so new to
politics has been burnt in interviews because he got you know,
he rose really fast, he got burned, and his interviews
very early on. I remember that Susie ferguson abortion one
with him very soon after he came into politics. He's
been absolutely you know, put us foot in numerous interviews
early on in his career and has therefore decided, while
(30:51):
I'm a bit gaff prone, so I'll just play go
into every interview with an incredibly defensive attitude, and that
that isn't going to work anymore. So I don't but
I don't know whether it suppose he doesn't know the answer,
or whether he's just been so burned because of his
own I mean, his father got burned. But whether he's
been so burned that he just goes into every int
of you incredibly defensively.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Yeah, and ironically, I mean that's a good move from
a CEO. You look at where your weaknesses are and delegate.
But this is just one thing that you're not able
to delegate. And I will say, since I feel a
bit bad for being so mean to the right honorable,
I will say that he is exceptionally good at delegating
and team building stuff like Simeon Brown excellent and transsport
(31:30):
Erica Stamford. Anything she touches is doing really well. There
are numerous other examples as well. We haven't seen that
many people that have really put a massive foot wrong,
and I think that it's probably done to his leadership
at some level.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
I do think he's quite a good leader. It's just
he's a very bad spokesperson. It's just on that.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
To what extent does the public care that he's infuriating
to listen to in an interview, because I guess people
do engage in the media, and well hopefully they do.
Does it be a great stations and works there?
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Two shutouts?
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Now?
Speaker 3 (32:01):
Great? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (32:02):
But you know, to what extent will that be reflected
in votes for people sort of over politics and over
politicians as celebrities and they do they just want to
get on with their lives. Yeah, we're surrounded by every
day and we're trying to get answers.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Yeah, and you know, like a lot of the PPM
numbers of Chris Weplins doesn't exactly love Prime Minister. And
like all around the world, we're in the era of
like very unpopular leaders, like people despise kiss Armor. In
the UK, they also like Cimmu bated not earlier position
over there seems very unpopular again and the like the
(32:37):
US Kamala Harris loath, Donald Trump loathed.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Even elbows having some trouble, although it looks.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Like he might be a one term Peter Dudden, like
you know, loathed. Like it's just we kind of are
in the era where the sort of celebrity politician is
there's no Obama in America, and Tony Blair is like
long gone from the scene. In the UK just under
doing and John Key their era is over here. It's just,
you know, it's an era of like relatively unpopular people
(33:03):
sort of juking it out. For second.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
That is the bleak and that is the bleakest way
to finish this year. I mean, you're right, I agree
with you, but.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
I don't know Barama that good.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
The issue that that I'm looking forward to in twenty
twenty five, and I've been trying to get answers on
this from the Prime Minister. Is around growth, infrastructure, foreign investment.
There's all this talk. You know, we get you know,
foreign capital, then get this infrastructure built, look at new
ways of getting the private section involved. And this is
going to grow the economy because it desperately needs. From
(33:38):
pure economic traditional economic perspective, it does need growth, and
you know we need to some better jobs, high paying jobs,
keep people here. All this, but we get to see
the detail around. Okay, so this foreign investor is investing
in this project, and here's the timeline, and this is
the this is the model. This is how much it's
going to cost the taxpayer. This is how much more
(33:59):
or less would be then if we just took the
det out ourselves and did ourselves without you know, having
this complicated new public private partnership structure. I think these
are the things I'm looking forward to in twenty twenty five.
It's like we need to start seeing some from flesh
now on these concepts.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
Well, it's Nicola Willis. I think the signal of a
few weeks ago that the budget will be a growth
budget let's you know the message behind it. I mean,
of course, like all budgets should argue, that's not exactly
going to say this is going to be a climb,
going to be a shrinking budget, like but you know, yeah,
I guess you know, growth is good. Interesting, there are
(34:37):
some treasury briefings that were productively released recently and it
did look into the sort of economic strategy. A high product,
highly productive economy is quite a good blue sky Treasury briefing.
And as you know how sometimes they would just go
for gold and it was it does sound like foreign
investment is going to be a big part of that
growth strategy. From this briefing, I think New Zealand. New
(35:00):
Zealand ranks so poorly in terms of its foreign investment
regime and the OECD. The briefing ranked US alongside other
other countries that were doing a much better job of
foreign investment. Among those countries was Taiwan.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
All the country.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
I should have rejected that one, but but you know,
it's interesting and that was a very young It was
an interesting briefing because it did the listed like five things.
Education lifting educational standards was one of them, which is
government's clearly quite focused on UH and and but the
other one, I think the one that that probably has
(35:35):
the most chance of bearing immediate fruit the fixing infrastructure,
because it was another one I think everything that would
that would lift GDP by point eight of the senis
point over the next few years, which is but but
foreign investment was the one that they thought they could
get going faster.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
So yeah, well, I'm not sure if like lower interest
rates for households in New Zealand alone is going to
do that much. So if you just think about yourself
and and if you have some debt and your mortgage
rate falls, and that's great, Like are you going to
rush out and spend and buy all the stuff next
year that that you weren't buying? They might be better?
(36:12):
Yeah exactly, But but will you or is there still
some uncertainty about your job? You know, you're a little
bit cautious after the last time we had a sugar
ash of of debt and and you know, interest rates
were low and then then went. I just wonder whether
there will be a bit of caution and whether lower
interest rates. I wonder if there's a limit.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
To how much consumer confidence, like business confidences, is tacking
up the consumer, and I think consumer confidence is sort
of then it was, I haven't seen the latest.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
I might buy a tumble dry, you know, maybe.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Huge.
Speaker 3 (36:49):
What are you going to do for fun next year?
I'm going to buy a tumbles.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
Any applients that you guys would like becau people always
say that our clients purchasers. That's sort of like it's
not like the new car is not like the house.
It's sort of like they're on the way there.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
A new washer dryer, the one that I have at
the moment shrinks all my clothes.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Really yeah, oh man, yeah, I was so excited for
that washing dry when you moved on impressive.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah. You put it on a five hour cycle and
it comes out well. So it washes it and then
it dries it and takes a while. I had to
I had a few clothes and like, I know for
a fact, it's not just me getting fatter. I'm not
going to I did notice Thomas look media up and
down when I said that. Just for the thing, I'll
stop at you.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
I'm in borised form the prescallery reporter. He has a
great one. You talk to him.
Speaker 3 (37:27):
I will.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
In the appliances, No.
Speaker 2 (37:30):
Just maybe they're dryer.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Maybe they probably won't do that.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
I'll probably spend my money on holidays instead.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
Yes, I think I'm thinking holidays, which is a good again,
like Le's let's good consumer spending. I might do some renovations.
I have a leaky roof. I've been borrowing money for insulation.
You can get some good deals.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
So boring an adult honestly, well, you.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Can get these cheap climate loans to do climate friendly stuff.
Do your house, all right? Any other politicians of the year, I.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
Think clear tri it's peace pretty well.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
Brown would definitely be up there.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
I would have put her him, sorry, right up there
with Erica Stanford. I think the fact that she beat
the PM, the Finance Minister and everybody else for the
mood of the boardroom speaks volumes about somebody that doesn't
really have that many finance focused portfolios. And I think
she's done well. Now I'm thinking she does.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Yeah. No, I'm trying to think of anyone who I mean.
I think probably the whole government front bench has done
pretty well. No obvious kind of serious floods. I think
Shane Ricci is probably on the naughty step if there's
if there's a reshuffle in the next wee while he'd
be the most high profile candidate for a potential tomotion.
But it's just idle speculation. If you were to if
(38:40):
you were to say, if you were to list the
front benches who are in the most trouble, I mean
it sort of emphatically him. But whether or not that
that qualifies for reshuffle material, that's you. You have to
be quite far down on the naughty step scale that
the worst imper of the Yeah, which of the Greens
there is worst in per of the probably Darling.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Darlinge or goal is probably Darlene, just simply, I mean
I do have to admire just the audacity of it,
you know, just the audacity.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
I mean, yeah, here's a hustler.
Speaker 3 (39:16):
She did hustle. I mean she ultimately lost, but yeah, just.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Yeah, like there's someone a one woman business confidence metrik
to back yourself like that. Yeah, so you know, yeah,
emissions up next to you. I don't know where they're going.
Probably no, we're meeting our first emissions budget. So the
missions are checking in the right directions. So there you go.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
Some optimism anyway, summer holidays, but both of you just
quickly exciting.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
I'm hosting the Summer Drive Show on z B fort eight.
If you got any hot reckons on things, eighty's the
number to call.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
I can call in you can.
Speaker 3 (39:57):
I have to fact check that number. Actually, I'm pretty
sure it's that.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
Yeah disgruntled from Wayhiki. If the if the caller starts
with what I'd say to you, it means that it's
a different disgruntled from Wayhiki. I am going to christ Church,
Napier and Wahiki Island.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
I'm very much like all three of them, lovely locations.
How about you heading up north some beach time, family time.
Looking forward to it.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
I very much hope you will have a lovely summer break.
Thank you for listening to on the tiles. This is
the last on the tiles of the year. Thank you
for joining us and listening this year. Georgina and I'll
be back next year. We hope, can never guarantee, so yes,
please join us. I think my holiday ends on about
(40:44):
the twentieths. I'll yeah come around there. Thank you very
much for listening.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Bye bye,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.